It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Congrats, Bigots... Kansas Has Your Back!

page: 19
49
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Frith
 





Whatever the target for your hate is, the idea that the homosexual community believes that a person who runs a business should be put out of business because they won't bake a cake or take photographs for a gay wedding gives lie to any statements that your agenda is driven by anything other than hate.

This is just silly and reads like trolling for flames.


No, suggesting that someone who won't bake a cake for a gay wedding because of their religious beliefs should either compromise their faith or lose their business is silly and as I stated hateful.

As far as "trolling for flames" My post was nothing of the sort and I think my posts to date indicate that I'm not here for that purpose. You're free to complain to the admins though and they can make a judgment on the matter.




posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 05:54 PM
link   

NavyDoc
Which shows how ignorant you are of the Constitution you pretend to support. Jim Crow, "separate but equal" was upheld by the Supreme Court and they did say it was Constitutional (before a later court made another decision.) Jim Crow, at one point WAS considered Constitutional and thus was "the law of the land."


Yes, and that flawed decision allowed for 58 more years of discrimination against African Americans. Is that what you're arguing for? Yes, I guess it is. The idea of "separate but equal" depended on the idea that owners of restaurants, trains, inns, theatres had the right to do as they wished on their property ... sound familiar to you?

Plessey was also a "limit the power of government" argument as well, by the way ... did you read it or just post a list from Wikipedia? Talk about contradictions; are you for discrimination, or not? You seem to go back and forth as your argument needs it.



Thus I have demonstrated that slavery WAS Constitutional and the law of the land. Jim Crow was Constitutional and the law of the land ... etc. etc.


Slavery had been outlawed in over half of the United States by 1790. Jim Crow only survived in the South because of arguments that the Federal Government should not overstep its boundaries. SOUND FAMILIAR?

Both have been repudiated by ... watch this ... the fact that eventually, the rights of the individual were brought into balance with the will of the People ACROSS THE UNITED STATES. Slavery, obviously, was not a balanced situation, and neither was "Jim Crow" but sadly for YOUR argument, what there is of it, both conditions prevailed because of the idea that "property is sacred:"

Dred Scott was denied his citizenship because he was declared to be PROPERTY.

Jim Crow survived for far too long because of backward ideas about the sanctity of PROPERTY and STATES RIGHTS.

You can make all the noise you want about standing by the Constitution.

All you are really arguing for is the very same ideas that allowed for slavery, Jim Crow and the rest ...
edit on 17Tue, 18 Feb 2014 17:57:16 -060014p052014266 by Gryphon66 because: silly formatting.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by phishfriar47
 


My wife did some baking/cooking for some Muslim friends of ours this past Christmas.

She had to go to several stores before she found Halal acceptable food for our friends.

I guess it's okay for some shops to discriminate because they did not cater to a specific group.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 06:05 PM
link   

beezzer
reply to post by phishfriar47
 


My wife did some baking/cooking for some Muslim friends of ours this past Christmas.

She had to go to several stores before she found Halal acceptable food for our friends.

I guess it's okay for some shops to discriminate because they did not cater to a specific group.


Did these shops refuse to sell your wife Halal food because she's not Muslim?

No?

Then it's not the same.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Gryphon66

beezzer
reply to post by phishfriar47
 


My wife did some baking/cooking for some Muslim friends of ours this past Christmas.

She had to go to several stores before she found Halal acceptable food for our friends.

I guess it's okay for some shops to discriminate because they did not cater to a specific group.


Did these shops refuse to sell your wife Halal food because she's not Muslim?

No?

Then it's not the same.


They did not cater to the Muslim community.

It is a passive discrimination. But I guess that is okay.

They just didn't want to provide a service to a segment of the community.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Cuervo
 


I completely support KS. the very definition and purpose of marriage is encouraging procreation in a stable home environment. gay couples marrying doesn't even have a purpose. demanding to marry makes as much sense as someone demanding to use an opposite sex toilet. why? there's just no real purpose. if you love someone, you say I love you. if you want to be together, move in. if money and laws concern you, draw up a power of attorney.
the gay agenda is not about getting equality. its about getting acceptance. and deconstructing a millennia old institution is just a casualty of that agenda.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 06:22 PM
link   

beezzer

They did not cater to the Muslim community.

It is a passive discrimination. But I guess that is okay.

They just didn't want to provide a service to a segment of the community.


Are you saying that the Halal shops you are referencing wouldn't sell to Muslims?

That seems counterproductive; are any of them still in business?



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Gryphon66

beezzer

They did not cater to the Muslim community.

It is a passive discrimination. But I guess that is okay.

They just didn't want to provide a service to a segment of the community.


Are you saying that the Halal shops you are referencing wouldn't sell to Muslims?

That seems counterproductive; are any of them still in business?


The usual shops did not cater to Muslims. My wife had to go to small specialty shops in order to get what she wanted.

Inside the shops, once my wife explained what she wanted to do, (cook a nice lamb meal with a nice dessert) the folks who were Muslim were more than helpful, kind, polite and created a great environment to shop in. (She's gone back since, just for the food and company)

But try going to a generic grocery store for Halal prepared foods! They obviously passively discriminate because they don't provide a service for a select group in the community.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 06:28 PM
link   

robobbob
reply to post by Cuervo
 


I completely support KS. the very definition and purpose of marriage is encouraging procreation in a stable home environment. gay couples marrying doesn't even have a purpose. demanding to marry makes as much sense as someone demanding to use an opposite sex toilet. why? there's just no real purpose. if you love someone, you say I love you. if you want to be together, move in. if money and laws concern you, draw up a power of attorney.
the gay agenda is not about getting equality. its about getting acceptance. and deconstructing a millennia old institution is just a casualty of that agenda.


Well, good. That makes 1 in favor.

(You may notice the Kansas Senate said "No, we're not going to discriminate.")

GIven your "very definition and purpose of marriage" I'm sure you're against straight couples with fertility problems being married then? No marriage for anyone after menopause? Alert the media.

The US Constitution is about "getting equality" friend, not the gay agenda, whatever that is.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 06:34 PM
link   

beezzer

The usual shops did not cater to Muslims. My wife had to go to small specialty shops in order to get what she wanted.

Inside the shops, once my wife explained what she wanted to do, (cook a nice lamb meal with a nice dessert) the folks who were Muslim were more than helpful, kind, polite and created a great environment to shop in. (She's gone back since, just for the food and company)

But try going to a generic grocery store for Halal prepared foods! They obviously passively discriminate because they don't provide a service for a select group in the community.


But, let me get this straight, so to speak.

The "usual shops" have inventories that are their standard inventories and don't sell Halal products. They didn't refuse to sell anything to your wife, did they? They just DON'T carry some products in their standard inventory.

The Halal shops had what your wife was looking for, but, they didn't refuse to sell anything either, because, they DID carry what your kind wife was looking for in their standard inventory of products.

So, in neither type of shop was your wife denied service because she was Christian, or your friends were Muslim, or ... anything else?

She wasn't denied service. The guys in the cake shop, that makes cakes, that sells cakes to the public, that makes cakes for DOGS weddings but not for certain humans' ... those guys DID REFUSE service, right?

The dropped Legislation in KS was designed to ALLOW REFUSAL OF SERVICE, right?

Yeah, that's what I thought.
edit on 18Tue, 18 Feb 2014 18:36:11 -060014p062014266 by Gryphon66 because: yeah.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


False equivalency. No one is asking that gay wedding cakes be made with gay flour and that grocers must sell gay flour. All anyone is saying is that if you are a baker and own a bakery selling baked goods to the public, you don't get to decide who the public is. If you don't want to serve gay couples take your business out of the public and go independent contractor.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 06:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


reply to post by Gryphon66
 


My wife was unable to shop at the stores that didn't carry Halal foods. They discriminated before she even set foot into the stores.

Stores should be free to carry what they want to carry.

It's entirely up to them if they want to exclude a segment of the population.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Gryphon66

NavyDoc
Which shows how ignorant you are of the Constitution you pretend to support. Jim Crow, "separate but equal" was upheld by the Supreme Court and they did say it was Constitutional (before a later court made another decision.) Jim Crow, at one point WAS considered Constitutional and thus was "the law of the land."


Yes, and that flawed decision allowed for 58 more years of discrimination against African Americans. Is that what you're arguing for? Yes, I guess it is. The idea of "separate but equal" depended on the idea that owners of restaurants, trains, inns, theatres had the right to do as they wished on their property ... sound familiar to you?

Plessey was also a "limit the power of government" argument as well, by the way ... did you read it or just post a list from Wikipedia? Talk about contradictions; are you for discrimination, or not? You seem to go back and forth as your argument needs it.



Thus I have demonstrated that slavery WAS Constitutional and the law of the land. Jim Crow was Constitutional and the law of the land ... etc. etc.


Slavery had been outlawed in over half of the United States by 1790. Jim Crow only survived in the South because of arguments that the Federal Government should not overstep its boundaries. SOUND FAMILIAR?

Both have been repudiated by ... watch this ... the fact that eventually, the rights of the individual were brought into balance with the will of the People ACROSS THE UNITED STATES. Slavery, obviously, was not a balanced situation, and neither was "Jim Crow" but sadly for YOUR argument, what there is of it, both conditions prevailed because of the idea that "property is sacred:"

Dred Scott was denied his citizenship because he was declared to be PROPERTY.

Jim Crow survived for far too long because of backward ideas about the sanctity of PROPERTY and STATES RIGHTS.

You can make all the noise you want about standing by the Constitution.

All you are really arguing for is the very same ideas that allowed for slavery, Jim Crow and the rest ...
edit on 17Tue, 18 Feb 2014 17:57:16 -060014p052014266 by Gryphon66 because: silly formatting.


Jim crow laws survived as long as they did because democrats like Woodrow Wilson who started segregation. Democrats didnt want blacks to vote and started setting up restrictions they were afraid the black vote would make the south to powerful. in elections. To keep the southern vote low they set restrictions in place for even literacy requirements which kept whites from voting as well. It got so bad in the south many white voters stopped even attempting to vote. Theres always more to the story especially when dealing with politicians.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 06:52 PM
link   
What I don't understand is why do people want to go where they are not accepted? Would you trust the service after making a big fuss?
If a business treats me like crap or refuses to serve me for whatever reason I simply go and give my money to those that want to serve me.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Ramcheck
If I were an American I would just draw a line through the middle and call the south Racistbigotland, and be done with it. Why waste any more time and energy on these fools? You want to progress? You want peace? It won't happen as long as you allow backward politicians to have any kind of 'power'.


1. Kansas is in the Midwest.

2. Excluding groups, demographics or entire parts of the country because they do not think the way that you do diminishes diversity and encourages bigotry.

I don't like the law. However, you are manifesting precisely the same attitude problem that would allow such a law to pass. The hypocrisy was too rich to not comment on.
edit on 18-2-2014 by redhorse because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Cuervo
 


It's not like gay people would eat at those restaurants anyways.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 07:20 PM
link   


What I don't understand is why do people want to go where they are not accepted? Would you trust the service after making a big fuss?


That's a good point. Doesn't seem rational does it?

Another possibility is that this is going to backfire on the LGBT community and it's supporters. Forcing business owners to service events like gay weddings that they oppose servicing on religious grounds isn't going to eliminate discrimination , it might just drive it underground and increase the intensity of whatever negative feelings there are towards them.

It may even create negative feelings that weren't there before. I know it has in my case. I realize now that a "live & let live" philosophy just isn't going to work and I'm saddened by that, I would have preferred a compromise.

In the end though, discrimination is very hard to prove against someone who knows the game, cakes don't always turn out well, and sometimes pictures just go missing. That's the reality.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


No it isn't up to business owners who they can do business with if they offer goods or services to the public.


Title 42 US Code 12181 (Section 7)

(7) Public accommodation

The following private entities are considered public accommodations for purposes of this subchapter, if the operations of such entities affect commerce— (A) an inn, hotel, motel, or other place of lodging, except for an establishment located within a building that contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and that is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as the residence of such proprietor; (B) a restaurant, bar, or other establishment serving food or drink; (C) a motion picture house, theater, concert hall, stadium, or other place of exhibition or entertainment; (D) an auditorium, convention center, lecture hall, or other place of public gathering; (E) a bakery, grocery store, clothing store, hardware store, shopping center, or other sales or rental establishment; (F) a laundromat, dry-cleaner, bank, barber shop, beauty shop, travel service, shoe repair service, funeral parlor, gas station, office of an accountant or lawyer, pharmacy, insurance office, professional office of a health care provider, hospital, or other service establishment; (G) a terminal, depot, or other station used for specified public transportation; (H) a museum, library, gallery, or other place of public display or collection; (I) a park, zoo, amusement park, or other place of recreation; (J) a nursery, elementary, secondary, undergraduate, or postgraduate private school, or other place of education; (K) a day care center, senior citizen center, homeless shelter, food bank, adoption agency, or other social service center establishment; and (L) a gymnasium, health spa, bowling alley, golf course, or other place of exercise or recreation.


Public accommodation laws go back 150 years.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 07:33 PM
link   
I am truly surprised at the mindset of people on this site.

Anyone who ever sat through a history course should see what is wrong a bill like this.

Maybe your empathy is reserved only for the groups you agree with. Mmmm



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by intelligenthoodlum33
 





Maybe your empathy is reserved only for the groups you agree with. Mmmm


As opposed to the total lack of empathy being displayed by the LGBT in this thread? lol . . . it just blows my mind that anyone would consider themselves enlightened and believe that destroying someone's business, the way they put a roof over their head and feed their children, because they won't bake a cake on religious grounds is "right"

It's ludicrous.



new topics

top topics



 
49
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join